Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: fingolfen who wrote (142348)	8/29/2001 11:47:05 AM
From: Robert Douglas	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

"OEMs are already voicing their concerns. They are afraid that customers who bought a MODEL 1600 could sue the PC-maker once they discovered that the processor inside is only running at 1400 MHz. It might not come to that, but the introduction of MODEL-numbers instead of real clock frequency will create a lot of confusion. I hope that AMD will reconsider." I wonder if anyone will file a truth in advertising claim against AMD with the FTC? Even more daunting, is this considered fraud? Any attorneys wish to comment?

To: fingolfen who wrote (142348)	8/29/2001 2:39:10 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Dear Fingolfen: Fact 2 is not a fact but, a supposition on your part. The reviews are 50/50 and thus, 2G P4 may have matched in the P4 biased benchmark suites, it fails in those that use real world data and environments. A super cooled 3GHz P4 does not show how it performs against a similarly cooled Palomino or Tbird run to the max. Tbirds have run at over 2GHz and do outrun 3GHz P4s in many benchmarks. I did not see the demo but, 100% CPU utilization occurs well before maximum thermal output. Heck, a cache thrashing CPU is at 100% use, yet it would be not doing very much in the way of thermal output. So fact 3 does not attest to their robustness. A P3-1.13 0.18 Al could do the same yet, it was definitely not robust! So, fact 3 is just another suposition. Fact 4 is only a rumor. We do not know it to be true. I do not like AMD's plan, if it is true. However, this is also a rumor and can not be considered true until verified by AMD or other such source. So goes your fact 5 down the tubes. However, I will send email to Toni to ask that this plan be dropped, just in case. All in all, your facts are not facts. You wish they were. Pete